Oh No, Area Man Has Take on Tanur Shel Achnai

Hey, I think this is a cool one!

So, let’s assume for a second we all know the Tanur Shel Achnai story. R. Eliezer and the Rabbis argue about an oven, R. Eliezer keeps bringing miraculous proof for his proof, the rabbis keep ignoring him, God Godself weighs in on R. Eliezer’s side, the rabbis go “yeah, so?” and continue to ignore R. Eliezer’s opinion, because “it is not in heaven” and we go by majority opinion, and R. Eliezer was in the minority on this question.

So here’s my question that I don’t necessarily have an answer to, but I’m gonna start writing about it and see where I end up. Let’s say the story goes differently. Let’s say R. Eliezer’s miraculous proofs work. He makes a tree jump in the air, and the rabbis, instead of going “we don’t base halakha on a carob tree” go “well, that sure is miraculous, I guess you’re right R. Eliezer”. Or let’s say when God Godself weighs in on R. Eliezer’s side, the rabbis go “well, I guess we’re wrong”. In such a case, would the halakha have been correctly decided?

What I’m trying to ask is why is the halakha not like R. Eliezer?

Is it because his proofs are inadmissible by technicality, that a carob tree or a divine voice is not considered a legitimate source of halakhic knowledge, and therefore the rabbis cannot accept them? In which case, if they were to be convinced by R. Eliezer, they would be in error, because they accepted illegitimate sources as legitimate?

Or is it that his proofs are theoretically admissible, they just didn’t convince the rabbis, and the reason why the halakha is not like R. Eliezer is simply because he failed to convince his peers of his opinion? This would mean that the main determiner of the correct halakha is whether it convinces a population of people to follow that interpretation, however that interpretation happens to be proved. The rabbis could have chosen to be convinced by R. Eliezer’s miracles. They just weren’t.

I think this is an interesting question, no?